Ben Ehrlich
BOME-H Band
3/9/04
Architecture in London: 1750-1850
The years 1750-1850 were the English century. London was a world capital and being transformed into one of the first modern cities in Europe. During this period, London experienced a boom in population, necessitating many new buildings. The battle over the new architectural look of London was a battle of politics and ideas. Certain architectural styles and movements could be described as metaphors for the politics of the time. Romanticism remained the purview of individualism, but Neoclassicism and Baroque became associated with the two most prominent political parties of the time, the former being tied to the Whigs and the latter to the Tories. This paper will discuss in detail Neoclassicism and the phases of Romanticism and show how these movements both shaped and were shaped by English politics.
One of the styles of architecture that became popular in the 1750s was Neoclassicism, which was born out of the Enlightenment, a period in England when rationalism, science, and intellectual curiousity were emphasized. Neoclassicism, literally meaning “new classicism,” is the style of art and architecture that shows classical Roman and Greek influences such as columns, arches, and domes. During the time of Neoclassicism, the rationalist way of thinking seeped into the arts. The pomp and high-class styles of Baroque art were frowned upon by the advocates of Neoclassicism. An early example of the Neoclassical style was Lord Burlington and William Kent’s Chiswick House, begun in 1725. It is simple; its surfaces are flat and white with no decoration. The front has Doric columns and the top of the house is a dome. The plan for Chiswick House reveals geometric symmetry, which differed greatly from the ornate style of Baroque architecture. Neoclassicism, as opposed to Baroque, “claimed to satisfy the demands of reason.”1 No extra design is added, for that is seen as irrational. As such, Neoclassical architects were regarded as having less artistic talent by skeptics. On the contrary, Neoclassical buildings were designed not to look like works of art, but rather to be practical and rational buildings with more utility than aesthetic value. The importance placed on rationalism can even be seen in the Neoclassical approach to landscape design.
In a way, the impression that buildings and landscapes were “unplanned” is the essence of Neoclassicism. In many English gardens, paths were designed to weave carefully around existing plants. No artificial fountains were found there; lakes and rivers ran through the gardens. By refusing tampering with the natural world, the Neoclassicists were proclaiming that nature reflected the highest order of reason. They believed that nature’s design the world should not be changed by a design of man. Therefore, Neoclassical designers tried to design things that looked like they fit in nature. Just as the paths in Neoclassical gardens were designed not to disrupt plants, Neoclassical streets were designed not to interfere with the local inhabitants.
John Nash’s 1825 plan for Regent Street, a commercial center of London, reflects the same natural feeling. The street wound around existing housing, so as not to disrupt the people living there. Previous to its construction, Regent Street caused much debate among the political parties. Once again, the Whigs were in favor of Nash’s Neoclassical design. The Tories were in favor of John White’s Baroque, imposing, and aristocratic design. Architecture, once again, was a microcosm of political battles in London.
The rational and natural motivations of Neoclassicism came to represent liberal Whig politics. The Whigs promoted economic and political reforms. They sought to enfranchise certain groups, such as the Catholics and the working class, and passed laws promoting free trade. The opposite of Neoclassicism, Baroque art was identified with Tory (conservative) politics. Baroque art was very grandiose and ornate; the only group of people who had the money to commission or build Baroque buildings were the aristocrats, and was seen as a way to show off their power. However, when looked at from a different angle, the political connections may seem odd. The Whigs, a progressive party, were linked to an architectural movement that looked backward to ancient ideas. The Tories a conservative party, looked to the past for inspiration, and strongly opposed increasing enfranchisement. The parties, at the time, were fighting for control of the House of Commons. The conflict between Neoclassical and Baroque art is an example of how architecture can stand for much more than just aesthetic beauty.
Another artistic movement that arose during the eighteenth century was Romanticism. Unlike Neoclassicism, Romanticism was less a specific style than a state of mind. Whereas Neoclassicism was the revival of classical architecture, Romanticism could include the revival of any style; it was for the artist to decide. This individualist expression is what best describes Romanticism. Though it is hard to recognize trends in Romantic art, some recurring themes are nature, the divine, and fate. The Neoclassicists saw nature as orderly and rational; however, the Romantics saw it as wild, untamed, and emotional. The Romantic movement is hard to categorize and its members would identify themselves as individuals before a part of a group. Anyone who shared a rebellious attitude towards society, religion, or government could call himself a Romantic.
A prime example of a Romantic building in England is John Nash’s Royal Pavillion in Brighton. The styles Nash chose to revive were wide-ranging: from Gothic to Chinese to Arabic to Indian. This was typical of Romanticism; the artists did not want an exclusive link to one order because that was what they were protesting. “The romantic generation was indeed very conscious of breaking sharply with its parents and grandparents.”2 Instead of identifying with merely one style of their grandparents, they chose whatever styles provoked emotion in them. The Royal Pavillion resembles the Taj Mahal in India. It has many puffy domes, which is the Indian revival. It also has many minarets, the Arab tower that is used to call people to prayer. The interesting geometric motifs throughout the facade brings in the Arabic element. Gothic pillars and arches and Chinese screens are also apparent. These combinations were so unique that they provoked a new term: Indian Gothic. The uniqueness and individuality of Nash’s design are the essence of Romanticism.
As England passed the year 1800, the more popular form of revival moved from classical to Gothic. Gothic architecture was very picturesque and grandiose and was traditionally found in churches and cathedrals. As Europe entered the Napoleanic Wars, Gothic styles came to represent nationalism. This is odd, considering Gothic is a phase of Romanticism, the ultimate personal expression. However one must merely define Romanticism as any form of expression made by an artist. If an artist chooses to express his nationalist sentiments through his art, that is still Romantic. The Houses of Parliament in London built by A.N. Welby Pugin and Sir Charles Barry are the greatest example of the Gothic revival in London. The building itself is grandiose enough to show the power of government. However, it is also subtle; there is no ostentatious or ornate additions. The design of the Parliament building differs greatly from designs by the absolute monarchs of the past. The equality of forms, the repetition and similarity in the facade of the Houses have a democratic feeling. From a distance, though, the towers that jut out asymmetrically make the Houses of Parliament a show of English power. Gothic styles could be used by any Romantic architect to convey whatever opinion he wanted; Pugin and Barry use Gothic influence to show nationalism and patriotism.
Despite their opposing views on reason and emotion, Neoclassicism and Romanticism share some commonality; they both sprung from the Enlightment and they both involve the revival of old architectural styles. This commonality is demonstrated by John Nash himself, the architect who designed not only the Neoclassical street but also a Romantic palace. Thus, a single architect could encompass both architectural movements.
As demonstrated in this paper, the opportunities to rebuild and expand London, a great modern city, brought out both architectural and political conflicts, which can be seen on great public landmarks, such as the Houses of Parliament, and the design of ordinary urban streets, such as Regent Street. The construction of new buildings was directly linked to the direction toward which the city of London was moving. The Whigs and Tories had different opinions on this, and therefore they backed Neoclassical and Baroque designs. One would expect to see these same aesthetic and political battles fought in the development of other great European cities such as Paris and Vienna.
Bibiliography
Edwards, Paul. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. and The Free Press, 1967.
Janson, H.W. History of Art. New York: Prentice Hall Inc. and Harry N. Abrams Inc, 1995.
Metcalf, Priscilla. Victorian London. New York: Praeger, 1973.
Metcalf, Roger and Muthesius, Stefan. Victorian Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Olsen, Donald J. The City as a Work of Art. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1986.
Watkin, David. History of Western Architecture. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 2000.
Watkin, David. English Architecture: A Concise History. London: Thames and Hudson, 2001.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/places/london.html. Architecture of London, England.
http://www.britainexpress.com/London/victorian-london.htm. Victorian London.